High Court of Tripura upholds that administrative errors in records cannot confer regular status; directs payment of undisputed salary arrears while affirming that gratuity and leave encashment under DRDA Regulations, 2014 are not payable to purely contractual staff.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/47/2024 of Dibyendu Chakraborty Vs The State of Tripura and ors |
| CNR | TRHC010007022024 |
| Date of Registration | 01-05-2024 |
| Decision Date | 27-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Partly Allowed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE M.S. Ramachandra Rao and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. Datta Purkayastha |
| Court | High Court of Tripura |
| Bench | Division Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms contractual-status principle; overrules direction for further inquiry |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | In absence of any formal order regularising the services, a long-serving contractual appointee remains contractual and is not entitled to gratuity, leave encashment or pension benefits reserved for regular employees under the DRDA Regulations, 2014. Administrative mistakes in reflecting a contract employee as regular do not alter legal status. However, remuneration for work actually performed—including pay revisions up to retirement—must be paid, and any pension or gratuity already drawn under a wrong assumption must be refunded with interest. No further inquiry was required once the factual position of uninterrupted contractual service was clear. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | District Rural Development Agency Employees Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity and Leave Encashment Regulations, 2014 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant served as Accounts Officer on successive contracts from 2001 to 31.12.2021 without any order of absorption; despite administrative records sometimes reflecting “regular” status, no formal regularisation occurred. After discontinuation, he claimed gratuity, leave encashment, pay revisions and EPF portal updation. The State asserted he was always contractual and sought inquiry into record manipulation. The Single Judge ordered an inquiry; on appeal the Division Bench partly allowed relief for arrears but held benefits under DRDA Regulations unavailable to him. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the High Court of Tripura |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts dealing with service law and contractual appointments |
| Overrules | Direction to conduct fresh inquiry under the letter dated 17.03.2022 |
| Distinguishes | Regular/absorbed posts vs purely contractual positions under DRDA Regulations, 2014 |
| Follows | DRDA Employees Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity and Leave Encashment Regulations, 2014 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that a contractual appointment, even if extended long-term, does not become “regular” without a formal regularisation order.
- Administrative or clerical errors in official lists cannot be invoked to claim benefits reserved for regular employees under DRDA Regulations.
- Salary and pay-revision arrears for services actually performed must be paid with interest, notwithstanding contractual status.
- Any pension or gratuity wrongly disbursed must be refunded with interest; parties can set-off mutual claims.
- No further inquiry is necessary once service records show uninterrupted contractual service and lack of regularisation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the absence of any formal order regularising the appellant’s contractual service.
- It applied Clause 1(2)(ii) of the DRDA Regulations, 2014 to exclude contract appointees from gratuity, leave encashment and pension.
- Administrative errors reflecting him as “regular” were held immaterial to legal status.
- The State’s contention of record manipulation was noted but did not require a fresh inquiry once contractual status was clear.
- The court directed payment of salary arrears and revised pay from October 2018 to retirement, with interest.
- It ordered refund of any pension/gratuity already received, with interest, and allowed set-off.
- EPF relief was denied for lack of party-array and material on enrolment.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Claimed to have been treated as regular at various points (memo sanctioning regular pay scale, ACP/MACP benefits).
- Maintained entitlement to gratuity, leave encashment, pay revisions, unpaid salary and EPF portal updation.
- Argued Art. 14 violation in keeping him perpetually contractual despite sanctioned post.
Respondent
- Asserted appointment was contractual throughout; no absorption order exists.
- Relied on DRDA Regulations 2014 to exclude contractual employees from retirement benefits.
- Pointed to communication seeking inquiry into irregular pay scale grant.
- Denied entitlement to EPF relief for lack of party-array and record of enrolment.
Factual Background
The appellant, an Ex-Serviceman, was appointed Accounts Officer on one-year contracts from 2001, with successive extensions until 31.12.2021. Despite occasional administrative entries calling him “regular,” no formal absorption order was ever passed. After his contract ended, he sought gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of pay revisions, unpaid salary, and EPF portal updation. The Single Judge set aside a rejection order and directed an inquiry; the Division Bench on appeal modified that direction and granted only arrears and refund-set-off relief.
Statutory Analysis
- DRDA Employees Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity and Leave Encashment Regulations, 2014:
- Clause 1(2)(ii) excludes contract appointees from gratuity and leave encashment.
- No statutory provision compels regularisation in absence of an executive order.
- Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 invoked for EPF portal relief but relief denied for lack of authority arrayed.
Procedural Innovations
- High Court set aside lower-court’s direction for administrative inquiry once contractual status was admitted.
- Directed mutual set-off of arrears and wrongly drawn pension/gratuity, clarifying calculation timelines and interest.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms established principle that formal regularisation is a precondition for claiming retirement benefits.
Citations
High Court of Tripura, W.A. No. 47 of 2024; judgment delivered on 27.08.2025, paras 27–30.